Why do you adjunct?

[nonntt]

I'm sorry to be coming in when this discussion has reached the Downer-v-Marshwiggle phase, but I think my experience may be relevant.

I adjunct because the money is fantastic.

I'm dead serious. I have a lot of teaching experience in my field and a giant collection of material saved from previous classes. I teach one course a semester, at $1300/credit hour, which is right around the national average. I usually teach a 4-credit beginning course in my field that I've taught around 50 times before, using a familiar textbook, and lesson plans and materials incrementally updated each semester. I teach twice a week, and for those 90 minutes or so, I'm earning over $100/hour. That's good money for just about anybody. Because I have all my materials ready to go, preparation time is minimal. My class size is capped below 30, and I only use test and homework formats that can be graded efficiently. I try to deal with all student issues right after class, so my office hour can be spent watching cat videos while I eat lunch. My colleagues are friendly and don't interfere with my teaching. My time commitment to teaching outside of class is minimal.

Prepping new courses is where you can lose money. I've taught all the classes in my discipline's basic sequence enough that I could prep a new course, or deal with a new textbook or semester schedule, without too much extra effort, but it has to be worth it in terms of future teaching. Online courses especially are a huge risk, and I got burned last year with some online courses that didn't get much enrollment. But now I have those courses completely ready to go, so they should be profitable next summer even with enrollments in the low single digits. Plus I've been able to re-use the modules I created in two other courses already.

There are additional benefits. There are some goodies that are only available to people with academic positions, and teaching one course gives me enough of a position that I might just get an all-expenses paid trip to an international conference in my field next year in a place I'd really like to go. About once a year, my colleagues will gratefully refer people to me who need my particular line of freelance work, since they have no time or interest in that kind of thing themselves, and the association with the university makes me more attractive to some people (and thus able to charge higher rates). So the university continues to be a highly valued client, not just for the money I earn, but also for the synergies with my freelance work, which is how I earn most of my income these days. Teaching can be enjoyable work, but I'm no longer wasting energy on heroic efforts under difficult circumstances. I come, teach my class, keep my students and colleagues happy, and go watch cat videos.

Is my contingent position exploitable? Heck no. The university has already fired me twice when there weren't enough classes. How much leverage do you think you'd have with someone you've already fired twice? I'd prefer to keep teaching for my highly valued client, but if a change in personnel or policy meant it wasn't fun anymore, I can have my office cleaned out and computer wiped in 15 minutes. Maybe 10. I have a plan in place for replacing the lost income.

This particular arrangement isn't scalable (I could teach 2 courses a semester if they were available, but not 3, and certainly not at multiple campuses), and not for everybody. It only works because I spent so long in NTT positions, and because I have non-academic freelance work, and I live in an inexpensive location, and because Obamacare makes it possible to obtain health insurance (our is still largely a single-income family).

But at $100+/hour, being an adjunct twice a week is worth it to me.

[downer]

I'm sorry to be coming in when this discussion has reached the Downer-v-Marshwiggle phase, but I think my experience may be relevant.

Wut? I don't really do v phases. I get exhausted just reading them.

[marshwiggle]

I'm sorry to be coming in when this discussion has reached the Downer-v-Marshwiggle phase, but I think my experience may be relevant.

I adjunct because the money is fantastic.

I'm dead serious. I have a lot of teaching experience in my field and a giant collection of material saved from previous classes. I teach one course a semester, at $1300/credit hour, which is right around the national average. I usually teach a 4-credit beginning course in my field that I've taught around 50 times before, using a familiar textbook, and lesson plans and materials incrementally updated each semester. I teach twice a week, and for those 90 minutes or so, I'm earning over $100/hour. That's good money for just about anybody. Because I have all my materials ready to go, preparation time is minimal. My class size is capped below 30, and I only use test and homework formats that can be graded efficiently. I try to deal with all student issues right after class, so my office hour can be spent watching cat videos while I eat lunch. My colleagues are friendly and don't interfere with my teaching. My time commitment to teaching outside of class is minimal.

Prepping new courses is where you can lose money. I've taught all the classes in my discipline's basic sequence enough that I could prep a new course, or deal with a new textbook or semester schedule, without too much extra effort, but it has to be worth it in terms of future teaching. Online courses especially are a huge risk, and I got burned last year with some online courses that didn't get much enrollment. But now I have those courses completely ready to go, so they should be profitable next summer even with enrollments in the low single digits. Plus I've been able to re-use the modules I created in two other courses already.

There are additional benefits. There are some goodies that are only available to people with academic positions, and teaching one course gives me enough of a position that I might just get an all-expenses paid trip to an international conference in my field next year in a place I'd really like to go. About once a year, my colleagues will gratefully refer people to me who need my particular line of freelance work, since they have no time or interest in that kind of thing themselves, and the association with the university makes me more attractive to some people (and thus able to charge higher rates). So the university continues to be a highly valued client, not just for the money I earn, but also for the synergies with my freelance work, which is how I earn most of my income these days. Teaching can be enjoyable work, but I'm no longer wasting energy on heroic efforts under difficult circumstances. I come, teach my class, keep my students and colleagues happy, and go watch cat videos.

Is my contingent position exploitable? Heck no. The university has already fired me twice when there weren't enough classes. How much leverage do you think you'd have with someone you've already fired twice? I'd prefer to keep teaching for my highly valued client, but if a change in personnel or policy meant it wasn't fun anymore, I can have my office cleaned out and computer wiped in 15 minutes. Maybe 10. I have a plan in place for replacing the lost income.

This particular arrangement isn't scalable (I could teach 2 courses a semester if they were available, but not 3, and certainly not at multiple campuses), and not for everybody. It only works because I spent so long in NTT positions, and because I have non-academic freelance work, and I live in an inexpensive location, and because Obamacare makes it possible to obtain health insurance (our is still largely a single-income family).

But at $100+/hour, being an adjunct twice a week is worth it to me.

This is excellent! I'd love to hear from anyone else who actually makes part-time teaching financially worthwhile. (Many of the points in here fit my experience as well.)

(Sorry to be partially responsible for a "phase". I've tried to avoid snark and ask genuine questions, but I probably get off in the weeds from time to time.)

Should this topic have its own thread? It seems to me something like the "Jedi Mind Tricks" thread for how to make adjuncting pay might be really useful.

[dlehman]

nonntt's post saddens me.  I have some similar circumstances, although my income opportunities both inside and outside of academia are somewhat better.  But my approach to teaching differs greatly.  Virtually every course I teach is a new preparation - I never use the same material in the same way more than once.  It is true that it is more efficient to prepare and deliver courses as nonntt has outlined, but I have never viewed that as quality teaching.  But it is what teaching has become - and that is true for many tenure track faculty as well - especially as teaching loads keep increasing.  I will quit when my approach to teaching becomes like that.  Unfortunately, "higher" education has been headed this direction for a long time, and shows no sign of reversing.  Relatively few tenure track or non-tenure track faculty can afford to take teaching seriously any more.  Instead, we are "serious" about process (detailed learning objectives, assessment rubrics, etc. - all of which scale nicely) and style.  But when it comes to content, we get sloppy.  As long as we know more than the students, we can get away with it.  I am sad that our personal sense of values has come to this.

[ciao_yall]

nonntt's post saddens me.  I have some similar circumstances, although my income opportunities both inside and outside of academia are somewhat better.  But my approach to teaching differs greatly.  Virtually every course I teach is a new preparation - I never use the same material in the same way more than once.  It is true that it is more efficient to prepare and deliver courses as nonntt has outlined, but I have never viewed that as quality teaching.  But it is what teaching has become - and that is true for many tenure track faculty as well - especially as teaching loads keep increasing.  I will quit when my approach to teaching becomes like that.  Unfortunately, "higher" education has been headed this direction for a long time, and shows no sign of reversing.  Relatively few tenure track or non-tenure track faculty can afford to take teaching seriously any more.  Instead, we are "serious" about process (detailed learning objectives, assessment rubrics, etc. - all of which scale nicely) and style.  But when it comes to content, we get sloppy.  As long as we know more than the students, we can get away with it.  I am sad that our personal sense of values has come to this.

Lazy teaching is nothing new. When I was in college in the 80's I recall a prof in my upper-division class whose lecture notes were yellow with age. When I asked a question he brushed it off as "beyond the scope of this class."

[mahagonny]

This is excellent! I'd love to hear from anyone else who actually makes part-time teaching financially worthwhile. (Many of the points in here fit my experience as well.)

(Sorry to be partially responsible for a "phase". I've tried to avoid snark and ask genuine questions, but I probably get off in the weeds from time to time.)

Should this topic have its own thread? It seems to me something like the "Jedi Mind Tricks" thread for how to make adjuncting pay might be really useful.

You've already heard it, from me.

Job A: Good pay, health insurance, building up equity, good professional networking, professional development opportunity. College with no tenure track.

I've also repeatedly stated that I generally don't teach for five minutes without pay. Committing to a semester of teaching because you're supposed to want to 'give back to the community' is inscrutable to me. Who are the people who deserve this charity, and what have they done that makes them so entitled?
What some in these discussions can't seem to handle is criticism of the system and the culture, without supposing that the critic either hopes his job will magically turn into a full time one, has some kind of false consciousness or intentionally makes self destructive choices. We can separate the questions of 'what do we need to do this year' from 'what do we think of higher ed trends and maintenance of good practice.'
And here's the other part you hate: the money is good because there's a strong union. And yes, the union's success means there a constant din of noise from members on a variety of their pet issues, from not enough women on the faculty to holding classes when snow is falling in callous disregard for our safety, etc. but the alternative would be no union, horrible pay and long hours.
Of course in Canada where you are, almost all faculty are unionized. And we can see how much better it is there for adjunct faculty.

[marshwiggle]

nonntt's post saddens me.  I have some similar circumstances, although my income opportunities both inside and outside of academia are somewhat better.  But my approach to teaching differs greatly.  Virtually every course I teach is a new preparation - I never use the same material in the same way more than once.  It is true that it is more efficient to prepare and deliver courses as nonntt has outlined, but I have never viewed that as quality teaching. 

This truly puzzles me. When I introduce totally new material, it's kind of rough. After tweaking it over time I'm able to present it much more coherently and effectively. I may get less enthusiastic about it over time, but I certainly teach it better.

But it is what teaching has become - and that is true for many tenure track faculty as well - especially as teaching loads keep increasing.  I will quit when my approach to teaching becomes like that.  Unfortunately, "higher" education has been headed this direction for a long time, and shows no sign of reversing.  Relatively few tenure track or non-tenure track faculty can afford to take teaching seriously any more.  Instead, we are "serious" about process (detailed learning objectives, assessment rubrics, etc. - all of which scale nicely) and style.  But when it comes to content, we get sloppy.  As long as we know more than the students, we can get away with it.  I am sad that our personal sense of values has come to this.

Again, I'm baffled by this. Most of the content for a course has to be relatively constant over time; a new topic or two may be introduced each time it's taught and an old one retired, but the core has to remain.

[mahagonny]

...And it ought to be a citizen's job to observe and criticize the state university's hiring and labor relations practices, including the practice of exempting themselves from social security contributions. My taxes are helping to keep it running. Those colleges that are not state sponsored are getting tax breaks and certainly invite scrutiny.

In particular, the whole idea that colleges are there for the students and not to create jobs is almost total bullshit. Many are getting rich off the system and some are getting  wicked filthy rich such as the state bureaucracy whiz kid who's president of our state system.

[ciao_yall]

...And it ought to be a citizen's job to observe and criticize the state university's hiring and labor relations practices, including the practice of exempting themselves from social security contributions. My taxes are helping to keep it running. Those colleges that are not state sponsored are getting tax breaks and certainly invite scrutiny.

In particular, the whole idea that colleges are there for the students and not to create jobs is almost total bullshit. Many are getting rich off the system and some are getting  wicked filthy rich such as the state bureaucracy whiz kid who's president of our state system.

They don't pay social security because they pay into a pension system as a substitute.

[mahagonny]

...And it ought to be a citizen's job to observe and criticize the state university's hiring and labor relations practices, including the practice of exempting themselves from social security contributions. My taxes are helping to keep it running. Those colleges that are not state sponsored are getting tax breaks and certainly invite scrutiny.

In particular, the whole idea that colleges are there for the students and not to create jobs is almost total bullshit. Many are getting rich off the system and some are getting  wicked filthy rich such as the state bureaucracy whiz kid who's president of our state system.

They don't pay social security because they pay into a pension system as a substitute.

In our case it's not a pension it's 'pension fund' which is a finite amount. Social security would be the far better investment because you'd be guaranteed benefits for life, even if you live to 100 (which I hope I don't). In addition with SS your contribution would be double since the employer would be matching it. So your entitlement would be based on that contribution.
Now, the deal for the tenured folks is much different. They'll be getting an actual pension. You can look them up online. They're more than many of us are earning by working 12 months every year.
Can you show us which states have a 'pension system' for their part time faculty that is something other than taking part of your earned wages and forcing you to save them in a fund of their choice? (Which you could have done as well or better on your own?)

[Caracal]

I'm sorry to be coming in when this discussion has reached the Downer-v-Marshwiggle phase, but I think my experience may be relevant.

I I teach twice a week, and for those 90 minutes or so, I'm earning over $100/hour. That's good money for just about anybody. Because I have all my materials ready to go, preparation time is minimal. My class size is capped below 30, and I only use test and homework formats that can be graded efficiently. I try to deal with all student issues right after class, so my office hour can be spent watching cat videos while I eat lunch. My colleagues are friendly and don't interfere with my teaching. My time commitment to teaching outside of class is minimal.

I don't want to get into the question of whether or not this is good teaching. Disciplines and classes vary quite a lot. Certainly, the amount of time I spend on prep has gone way down over the years. However, in my discipline, I consider multiple choice exams to be verging on malpractice. If I had 400 students a semester and no TA I might not have a choice, but it just isn't a good way to evaluate student knowledge and it misrepresents the discipline.

Ditto for meeting with students. I wouldn't say student meetings take up a huge proportion of my time, but I have students writing papers and doing projects and I couldn't reasonably just meet with them right after class.

As for the rest, I think your perspective might be quite different if you taught more classes and it was a larger portion of your life. At some point, teaching the same thing over and over again gets boring. I did promise myself last year that I wouldn't do any new classes for a couple years, but I'm sure I'll do it again eventually just because it keeps me engaged. Even without brand new classes, it gets depressing not to try to fix larger problems. I've been trying to rework some of my classes so that they engage more with things going on in the world. I have a gen ed course I've been teaching for a number of years and its ok, but I've been increasingly feeling like I should rework it so it feels more relevant to students.

I don't have to do any of this, my evals are good, and I've gotten good reviews in peer evaluations, but this is my job and I'm eventually just going to get jaded and depressed about the whole thing if I'm just trundling along.

[Aster]

Why don't you just hire a private investigator?

I suppose that if one thought that all professors were qualified, well-intentioned, and ethical, then it would seem outlandish to carefully screen their applications with a fine-toothed comb and then do supplemental background checks.

But I can state strongly from direct experience that there are in fact many professors who are not qualified, not well-intentioned, and pointedly unethical. In my area of the U.S., somewhere between 30-60% of the faculty applications that I receive will be in this category. Yes, that is correct. 30-60%. Wrong degrees. Non-accredited universities. Incomplete transcripts. Inadequate transcripts. Incomplete applications. Inadequate applications. Existing work conflicts. Falsified information. Prior incidents with previous employers. I see it all the time.

My experiences with these individuals have noted that quite a few of these people would never have been hired in the first place if they had been thoroughly screened. So I screen thoroughly. And it pays off very, very well in getting people that I can trust and rely on to be good colleagues, good educators, and good employees.

And then I look at what happens in other departments and at other campuses at Big Urban College where hiring is hasty and sloppy. The arguments "I don't have to time check their references," or "I don't have time to read their CV," or "I don't have time to see if they're already working at Nearby Urban College" are common. Yeah, you're blowing all your time stuck in disciplinary meetings with your sloppy-hires, fielding student complaints about your sloppy hires, doing the service work of your sloppy-hires, teaching the classes of your sloppy-hires because they had their certifications revoked, hiring new people to replace your sloppy-hires, yada yada yada. Jesus people, you did this to yourselves.

It pays off big time, to both time-invest and to plan strategically with hiring practices. A good professor is a institutional Asset and a Giver. A bad professor is an institutional Liability and a Taker. It usually takes me no more than 30-45 minutes to perform a careful screening of a questionable job applicant. For ensuring a positive, collaborative, productive work environment, those minutes are some of the most important ones that I dedicate into the college.

[mahagonny]

I get quite a few applications where all I'm given for job experience is a list of classes taught. Almost all of those terrible applications come exclusively from community college perma-adjuncts. I really don't know what these people are thinking when they're writing their applications.

They're thinking 'this has worked before at similar schools where I've been hired.'

Red flags when I'm hiring.
1. This person's terminal degrees come from questionable universities
2. This person's degree transcripts are questionable (regarding specific coursework and/or course grades)
3. This person has no experience in teaching at the university level
4. This person has no professional experience in their discipline (outside the acquisition of their terminal degree)
5. This person has ludicrously high RMP ratings (yes, I check RMP its very effective in ferreting out severe grade inflators)
6. This person is already teaching at other universities (this is more a yellow flag - much depends on the details)
7. This person is wildly overloaded with teaching duties at other campuses or colleges

You don't know how much class preparation time they need. They're probably courses they've taught before.

[Wahoo Redux]

Why don't you just hire a private investigator?

I suppose that if one thought that all professors were qualified, well-intentioned, and ethical, then it would seem outlandish to carefully screen their applications with a fine-toothed comb and then do supplemental background checks.

But I can state strongly from direct experience that there are in fact many professors who are not qualified, not well-intentioned, and pointedly unethical. In my area of the U.S., somewhere between 30-60% of the faculty applications that I receive will be in this category. Yes, that is correct. 30-60%. Wrong degrees. Non-accredited universities. Incomplete transcripts. Inadequate transcripts. Incomplete applications. Inadequate applications. Existing work conflicts. Falsified information. Prior incidents with previous employers. I see it all the time.

My experiences with these individuals have noted that quite a few of these people would never have been hired in the first place if they had been thoroughly screened. So I screen thoroughly. And it pays off very, very well in getting people that I can trust and rely on to be good colleagues, good educators, and good employees.

And then I look at what happens in other departments and at other campuses at Big Urban College where hiring is hasty and sloppy. The arguments "I don't have to time check their references," or "I don't have time to read their CV," or "I don't have time to see if they're already working at Nearby Urban College" are common. Yeah, you're blowing all your time stuck in disciplinary meetings with your sloppy-hires, fielding student complaints about your sloppy hires, doing the service work of your sloppy-hires, teaching the classes of your sloppy-hires because they had their certifications revoked, hiring new people to replace your sloppy-hires, yada yada yada. Jesus people, you did this to yourselves.

It pays off big time, to both time-invest and to plan strategically with hiring practices. A good professor is a institutional Asset and a Giver. A bad professor is an institutional Liability and a Taker. It usually takes me no more than 30-45 minutes to perform a careful screening of a questionable job applicant. For ensuring a positive, collaborative, productive work environment, those minutes are some of the most important ones that I dedicate into the college.

Again and again we have front-line anecdotal evidence for why we need to fix the "adjunct problem." 

Imagine if, instead of this cloak-and-dagger / bad-faith business, you could actually run a series of nationwide searches with real search committees and qualified applicants vying for FT career jobs instead of the "Yikes!" situation you have described.

[Aster]

I get quite a few applications where all I'm given for job experience is a list of classes taught. Almost all of those terrible applications come exclusively from community college perma-adjuncts. I really don't know what these people are thinking when they're writing their applications.

They're thinking 'this has worked before at similar schools where I've been hired.'

Red flags when I'm hiring.
1. This person's terminal degrees come from questionable universities
2. This person's degree transcripts are questionable (regarding specific coursework and/or course grades)
3. This person has no experience in teaching at the university level
4. This person has no professional experience in their discipline (outside the acquisition of their terminal degree)
5. This person has ludicrously high RMP ratings (yes, I check RMP its very effective in ferreting out severe grade inflators)
6. This person is already teaching at other universities (this is more a yellow flag - much depends on the details)
7. This person is wildly overloaded with teaching duties at other campuses or colleges

You don't know how much class preparation time they need. They're probably courses they've taught before.

Oh, I don't need to know that. Class prep is rarely a consideration. I just use the maximum teaching load value for full-time faculty at teaching-exclusive institutions. That's going to be 15-18 credit hours per term. That's a straight teaching load with no service or research buy-outs. 

So if I see some dude already teaching 12 credits online for Grand Canyon University Online and 9 credits at Nearby Rural College, I'm probably going to pass on his application. This person is already teaching a heavy course load; heck he's overloaded already by pretty much everybody's definition. It doesn't matter how many preps or how many different course types at that point. It's still at least seven different classes. That's bad even if he was just working at one institution.